Tow #30- Letter to a New APELC Student

Dear APELC Student,

Junior year IS hard. I know you've most likely heard this already, and I'm sorry, but don't give up. Don't relax too much either. The stress that accompanies junior year and AP classes is meant to challenge you and help prepare you for college, even if you don't feel ready yet. Also know that your writing will improve: be happy with what skills you have already mastered by the start of AP English and be optimistic about the future of your writing.

I hope I can give you some advice about APELC that  will make the class more worthwhile and beneficial. The following is what I wish I would've known before starting the class:

1. There is never such a thing as "just reading" or reading once while in APELC- Make notes and annotate (combined, this is also known as "close reading") very article and essay you read for the class. If you read something and don't understand it the first time, READ IT AGAIN even if you don't want to or you are up late with other homework. The information you will get from taking time to seriously read and understand a text will help you to understand and participate better in class and will improve your essays. Also, don't read a text specifically for rhetorical strategies; read it for its argument/claim and or purpose. Then, go back and figure out what strategies the author uses to accomplish that purpose or make that argument.

2. Be organized and serious about your AP English blog- The blog you were asked to create and post on during the summer will be with you long after you have taken the AP exam, and will be a constant source of homework once you start "TOWs". Don't neglect it or be lazy about maintaining it, because it can help you and can boost your grade. Another point: don't procrastinate on your TOWs and try to write them like small essays from the beginning. Slacking off on TOWs makes it easier to slack off on in-class essays and other shorter writing assignments.

3. Ask questions- If you don't think your writing is improving, ask questions about it, have it checked, and do more practice. As corny as it may seem, practice does make almost perfect. (Note: You can never ace an essay, only get a 98 by getting a 9.)  If you get stuck in a rut, and get the same score on essay after essay, looks for common mistakes. Don't be ashamed to show your work to others, and remember to peer edit other people's essays the way you would want to have you essay edited. Honest, but helpful and considerate editing is ideal. Don't be afraid of constructive criticism, and don't be nice to friends when it comes to their writing. If you want to help them, and their writing needs to improve, tell them and help them! :)

Overall, try to make the most of APELC. It's your chance to take a college course and still receive help from teachers on your writing and understanding of readings. Professors,  most of the time, are not as considerate as high school teachers.

Lastly, remember that as much as tired as you get and as emotional as you may become about the class ( on your worst, most stressful days), it is you who is turning in the assignments and preparing for class. Don't be mad at friends who have less homework, parents who go to bed hours before, or teachers who continue to pile on the homework. You will improve something and/or learn something. It will be worth it in the end!

Good luck throughout the year! With effort and optimism, you will do wonderfully!

Sarah

Tow #29- Documentary Rhetorical Analysis 2

Viewing Goal: Identify arguments made in The Queen of Versailles

Writing Goal: Use personal knowledge I've gained throughout the year's Tows and readings to take a position on one argument I've identified 

For much of America's history, the country has been known as a "melting pot" or "mixed salad"- people of every culture define themselves as one nationality, as "Americans", and blend their ideas and ways of life. But even though being called an "American" can be somewhat vague of a description, the title "American" also represents being a part of a powerful, capitalist society and, in many cases, part of a moral and loving family. People across the globe idolize the United States for its "American Dream"- to make it rich, be successful, and live a free, happy life with friends and family. The documentary The Queen of Versailles claim that the Siegel family is an "American family" is true to the extent that the family has achieved the "American Dream", but does not live up to American familial or social values.

Though the Siegel family is rich and famous, they do not live as an "American family" should. David and Jackie Siegel supposedly come from "humble backgrounds", but at the same time do not seem overall concerned about saving money at home, just saving money overall. Jackie worries about donating things and the employees they had to lay off, but continues to shop and drive around in a chauffeured limo.  David worries about their Las Vegas resort and his wife's credit cards, but is extremely hesitant to sell the 90,000 square foot, $75 million "home" that he is building, nicknamed Versailles. Neither one realizes that they aren't really struggling, and neither one is eager to cut out things that really are unnecessary luxuries in order to live a still comfortable life and save their business. They don't notice the ridiculousness of a house such as Versailles, but argue over things like the lights being on when David gets home from work. The Siegels also cannot agree and fight within their own family. David's son admits that he is the only one of David's sons (who are part of the family business, Westgate) who will still stand by his father's decisions. Their staff, including their nannies, who are from South Asia (the Philippines? Vietnam?) cannot be with their families because they are required to care for the Siegel children. Victoria Siegel, one of David and Jackie's daughters, admits that she believes her father married her mother so he would have a pretty trophy wife to show off. Jackie knows nothing about the family finances, and feels out of the loop and stupid for being unaware. The family is not living with good family relationships; even though many American families do not have good relationships, many do not deal with the same issues at the same scale and almost no one else can blow off such issues to continue to live in luxury. The Siegel family does not live up to ideal "American Dream" familial or social values, even though the documentary argues that they are true, "down-to-earth" people.

In The Queen of Versailles, the Siegel family is presented as an average American family, happy and living the American Dream and acting on "American" social and familial values. They do not fit the true picture of America, despite the fact that the United States has a diverse population economically, socially, and racially. Whether the majority of America lives up to these morals or not, the Siegels are so "over-the-top" that their behavior doesn't fit in with skewed American morals. In fact, in many ways, the Siegels cannot be considered stereotypically "American" and do not act in ways that agree with American morals.

Tow #28- Documentary Rhetorical Analysis 1

Viewing Goal: Identify the documentary's purpose 

Writing Goal: Analyze The Queen of Versailles as I would analyze an essay or other visual text

The french king who built the Palace of Versailles, Louis XIV, was known as the "Sun King" and passed on his love of luxury to his grandson, King Louis XVI. Louis XVI and his infamous wife, Marie Antoinette, were believed to only care for themselves and their futures, rather than their people, at the start of the French Revolution. The Queen of Versailles, a documentary by Lauren Greenfield that focuses on the life of billionaire businessman David Siegel, his wife Jackie and their family, is a not so subtle allegory of/allusion to the life and struggles of the French royalty at the time of the American Revolution. She argues that while the Siegel family can be considered "down-to-earth", they live in an excessive way. Greenfield, through an interview-like style and emphasis of the setting of the documentary, exaggerates the spoiled behavior of the characters and unnecessary luxury of their lifestyle to argue that no one is perfect. 

The Queen of Versailles is completely focused on the life of the Siegel family in every way. David Siegel is the CEO, owner and founder of Westgate, a timeshare company with resorts across the United States and the brightest sign on the Las Vegas strip. His wife Jackie is 30 years younger than him and a retired beauty pageant contestant, model, and engineer. Both David and Jackie came from "meager lifestyles" and "never imagined" living where they do now, in a sprawling mansion in Orlando, Florida. The 8 Siegel children are so exposed to their life of luxury, with nannies, exotic pets, and limousines, that the idea of college, flying commercial, and earning a living is foreign to them. Being forced to live "among their means" is a struggle when the 2008 recession hits. But while the Siegels physically appear to be living in an over the top manner, they, their employees, and many of their friends and associates insist that they are "normal" people who "make other peoples' lives better through knowing them". The documentary is humorous, but also very blunt and candid, because the Siegels often don't realize that their actions are ridiculous, or that laying off thousands of employees from their company means they HAVE to sell their 90,000 square foot, $75 million "Versailles". They may be nice people, but they have flaws and appear to be living in a fantasy world, not reality.

The documentary, for the most part, seems very personal. The Siegel family's actions are filmed for 2 years, they are interviewed, and all the while, Greenfield never comments on their lifestyle, actions, or words outside of asking a few questions. The documentary relies on the Siegels, and if it were not for the interesting camera angles used and the fact that the family members and staff look directly at the camera, The Queen of Versailles would be less documentary-like and more like real life. This focus on the Siegels causes viewers to focus nearly all their attention on the family and their lifestyle, despite its exaggerated comparisons to the real Versailles, Louis XVI, and the title's namesake, Marie Antoinette. The family is seen in all its glory and all its struggle, and while it seems luxurious and powerful in the beginning, by the end, viewers are left feeling sorry for the family and exposed to their imperfection.

Setting is also very important to the documentary. The majority of the documentary takes place at the Siegels' home, their partially built place (Versailles), or with David Siegel's son and vice president at the Las Vegas PH Towers resort. Their excessive lifestyle is put into focus and makes the family seem more spoiled than ever, if they can leave their house in such a state of clutter and have things go to waste. The setting also helps viewers to compare the Siegels to everyday American families in both positive and negative ways. Positively, it emphasizes that the Siegels are messy, busy people who also have to worry about money and love their home. Negatively, they seem over-indulged and materialistic, despite David and Jackie's humble backgrounds. The family image as a perfect, American success story is destroyed because of the setting and the things the family says in their interviews.

Much like the luxury of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, David and Jackie Siegel are a family who has achieved success and appear to have let it bring their lifestyle to excess. They are a "normal" American family in some ways, but also exemplify the reality that no one is perfect and excess is not always acceptable. They are rich and famous, but also flawed and struggling to maintain their daily, spoiled routines. The Queen of Versailles is a documentary that causes people to think about "perfection" and success, and assess themselves based on the lifestyle of one big, over-the-top(perhaps exaggerated) family. 

Tow #27- Tow Reflection

Reading Goal: Find similarities between Tows #3, 11, and 19 

Writing Goal: Respond to assignment questions thoroughly 

Overall, throughout the year, I have both extremely disliked and appreciated writing TOWs. They were annoying to write, especially under a deadline, but I found that my essay writing really improved over the year because of writing timed essays and TOWs. From TOW #3 to TOW #11, my writing improved mainly in its organization and planning. While #3 and #11 are both mostly summary and worse than #19, #11 has more analysis and is a better attempt at rhetorical analysis than #3. #19 is the best organization-wise of the three TOWs because it is structured like a mini timed essay, and was one of the first TOWs I wrote that was supposed to model actual analysis writing. It finally occurred to me during the end of the 2nd marking period that TOWs weren't really helping my writing, since I was stuck in a writing rut and my TOWs were not very well-thought out or unique from each other. #19 is also the best of the three because of what it is analyzing. The TOWs I wrote in the beginning of the year are for the most part based on interesting articles, but not rhetorical masterpieces. #3 and #19 are more appropriate for analytic writing than #11, but I still think it's good that I varied the topics I was reading about despite the fact that many times, I was not excited about the article I chose. I think that if I could change anything, I would pick articles, essays, and other writing that is both new and interesting right from the start. I think it is definitely easier to write s better essay about something you understand and can connect to. From the beginning of TOW writing to now, I think I've mastered how to form an essay. I've realized that an essay no longer has to be 5 paragraphs, should have its thesis at the end of the first paragraph, needs strong topic sentences, and doesn't need generalized or quoted hooks and closings. I used to format my essays all in the same general style, and it was decent writing, but it wasn't getting me closer to an 8 and away from a 5. On the other hand, I think that my analysis could always improve. I still have to keep in mind that I must connect my analysis and ideas back to my thesis throughout my paragraphs, and sometimes I don't have enough evidence or reference my thesis only at the beginning and end. My analysis has improved, and I see the flaws, but knowing about the mistakes hasn't made them all disappear; I think that when it comes to improvement, tying my analysis to my thesis is one of my biggest things to work on. The thing I appreciated most about the TOWs was that they taught me to write well no matter what I am writing. It could be a AP essay for points, for the exam, or just for timed practice or a TOW, but it still counts in the long run towards making me a better writer. #11 and #19 resemble essays much more than #3, which seems like a commentary or summary even though the article/essay discussed is of better rhetorical quality than the topic of #11. Writing TOWs helped my writing to become AP quality just as much as the timed essays and other assignments because it made me finally think about the quality of my writing and what I can do to improve it. I learned that I have room to grow as a writer, and that was a good lesson to learn after having theme readers freshman and sophomore years who always gave me strong A grades and no little room to improve. Writing a mini essay and maintaining a blog may have been painful and/or exhausting this year, but it is worth it now that I see how much my writing has grown. 

Tow #26- IRB/ "Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife"/ Mary Roach

Reading Goal: Find sub-purposes, within the overall purpose of the book, that Roach accomplishes 

Writing Goal: Analyze rhetorical strategies Roach uses for her overall purpose and sub-purposes

Death is a topic that makes many people uncomfortable, especially when the topic of religion comes up. Our society today is hesitant to believe in "life after death", or any sort of spiritual, supernatural explanation to what happens after we die. Providing evidence that proves and disproves the existence of an afterlife, author Mary Roach uses exemplification and personal diction to entertain and inform her readers. 

The beginning of Spook starts with an aspect of religion many people are familiar with: church, and more directly, the Pope. People all over the world understand the Pope's significance as a religious leader, and even more at least know of the Pope. By using the Pope as a reference and example, readers are able to understand in more detail the afterlife beliefs they already know about or have heard about. Roach then shifts focus to evidence for reincarnation, where a person experiences afterlife on earth, and reaches the best form of afterlife after living many lives and getting rid of bad karma. She delves into researching reincarnation by explaining a trip she took to India to speak with a reincarnation specialist and meet some of his study subjects/clients/patients. the same can be said for her other examples. Since much of Roach's writing is written in a personal, anecdotal way that relies on examples, the book feels very real and makes her evidence seem more credible and informative.

Spook's author also uses personal, very conversational diction to make her nonfiction writing more entertaining. The book reads as if she is explaining the experiences she had while researching afterlives of many cultures, and is not completely serious or stereotypically  boring. Each chapter explores a new topic within researching the afterlife, and though the scientific terms could get confusing, they are well explained and easy to follow. Roach's writing reads like something a real person would say while talking, and not some textbook that a student would study about afterlife theories before an exam. Her diction also builds a sort of pathos that makes readers think about the afterlife personally. Roach teaches, but it doesn't feel that way until after you realize you've learned a bunch of new things about, for example, reincarnation. She builds upon beliefs readers already have or consider, both proving and disproving the afterlife, and doesn't take a particularly religious side despite how awkward writing personally about a controversial topic like religion could become.

Mary Roach, the author of Spook, uses both personal, conversational diction and examples to inform and entertain readers with theories on the afterlife. It is refreshing, and doesn't focus on death, so the book is not uncomfortable. 

Tow #25- New York Times Article/ "Is It Now A Crime to Be Poor?"/ Barbara Ehrenreich

Reading Goal: Correctly identify the author's purpose 

Writing Goal: Use and cite direct quotes; don't just paraphrase

Societies all over the world experience conflicts related with poverty and the gap between rich and poor. The poor are notoriously associated with crime and danger, leading to societies that have no trust for those below the poverty line and no desire to help them. Author and journalist Barbara Ehrenreich, through the use of irony and exemplification, argues that this mindset about the poor is misguided and a result of stereotyping.

Ehrenreich's article relies heavily on examples to show that treatment of the poor and blame for illegal behavior is wrong in many of America's cities. She first starts with the results of a recent study that investigates the "criminalization of poverty" (Ehrenreich), where the impoverished are blamed for crimes or are put in poverty because of common stereotypes and guilty looking behavior. When, for example, someone on the brink of poverty is fined for littering or illegally crossing the street and can't pay, they could end up homeless or in prison for not paying their bills or their fine. This is often even more true for African American and Hispanic citizens, who have to deal with racial stereotypes as well, not just being blamed for suspicious actions. The author also uses the example of Al Szekely, an elderly man in a wheelchair from Washington D.C. Though he is an innocent, polite man and a minister, he was put in prison and forced to leave the homeless shelter he lives in "for not appearing in court to face a charge of 'criminal trespassing'" (Ehrenreich). He received this charge because he was found sleeping on a sidewalk of the city, which is illegal for all U.S. citizens, homeless or otherwise. Ehrenreich uses other examples as well to make the point that the treatment of people in poverty is unfair and that these people have a disadvantage when it comes to this treatment or the laws they must follow.

Irony is another tool Ehrenreich uses often to make her argument. By way of many of her examples, she examines cases where people in poverty where unfairly arrested, fined, or imprisoned and became impoverished as a result of this treatment/circumstance. The act of imprisoning criminals and upholding the law is supposed to prevent crime and help, much less get in the way of, poverty. Instead, there are many situations where "upholding the law" (Ehrenreich) has created poverty. Also, Ehrenreich comments on how law enforcers frequently find the impoverished or poor at fault and blame them for illegal behavior because they can almost always profile a person as a "potential suspect" if that person is just "strolling around in a dodgy neighborhood" (Ehrenreich). Through the use of irony and sarcasm in statements like the one above, the author is questioning how fining and imprisoning the poor is of any benefit. They cannot pay the fines, and they take up unnecessary space in prisons if they are there for simple reasons like loitering or laying on the street. The poor are stereotyped and blamed when, Ehrenreich argues, "we can't afford to help the poor", or "go on tormenting them" (Ehrenreich).

Author Barbara Ehrenreich uses examples and irony to make a point about America's treatment of the impoverished: that it is unfair and doesn't accomplish anything. She challenges the common stereotypes about the poor and those in poverty and claims that law enforcement is too quick to blame these people for illegal actions, crime and general suspicious activity. Overall, Ehrenreich questions whether people take the easy way out by blaming the impoverished and also questions why many seem to think it  now a "crime to be poor" (Ehrenreich).

Ehrenreich, Barbara. "Is It Now a Crime to Be Poor?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Aug. 2009. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.

IRB #4 Introduction Post

Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife

By Mary Roach 

Spook is all about the scientific evidence that both supports and debunks ideas on the "afterlife". It focuses on finding factual explanations for the beliefs of many cultures and religions, using the studies of certified scientists, historians, and other experts on the subject. The author, Mary Roach, wrote the book because she was curious about what happens after people die, and decided to collect information both for against the argument that some sort of afterlife exists. The book is supposed to be informative, cultural, and funny. 

I chose this book because science has never been one of my favorite topics, and I was trying to branch out from what I normal read/have read for my other IRBs, subject-wise. So far, I've read a book on Native American history, a memoir about food (cheese), and a psychological, somewhat "self-help" book by Malcolm Gladwell. Reading something comparing religion and science seemed a good choice and more challenging topic since, at least to me, it enters official "non-fiction territory". Also, religion is very important to me on a day-to-day basis. I'm an active member at my church, so I've considered a lot of the questions the author appears to think about and argue about. I'm hoping that this book rounds out the information I've learned from reading IRBs this year and is as good as its reviews.